HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-2014 ph1 muellerCOUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.:�p
c5�%�O�rfKC� 10..1 r2- uloe�d�- �l',�I�N
What is required of the counsel to approve this project is to accept a staff work around to
approve a project that is not in compliance with the city ordinance.
The presentation provided almost appears to be a stand alone improvement of a small
residence that is built either mostly or entirely within an established setback.
The site including all setbacks in the calculation, is really only about 12000 square feet
currently the city has approved a 2200 square foot office building and about 8000 square
feet of paving. Also included on the site is a second structure built more than 50 percent
inside the city designated creek setback. Built in 1958 this structure is approximately
equal to a one car garage, and has been used as a residence or an office.
The city declares that there is not alternate configuration for the development second
building -- a three bedroom two bath home -- except on the footprint that is currently in
the setback. The modified proposal also increased the building footprint within the
setback. The city represents that such a home has no yard space at all excepting the front
setback and that the increased development does not affect the setback resources at all
despite increasing the occupancy.
The city also declares that to not allow this use would be remove other constuctive use.
And that similar constructive of a SECOND unit is universally or even typically allowed
equally with the adjacent properties.
Neither of these declarations are supported by either example or comparison. Counsel
may agree that they like the project and not require the Findings . My personal opinion
is neither for the project or concerned how it is considered by the counsel.
As staff contends Each project is different However the processing of the application
does not have different criterea applied. As such the following must be true of each
application where the ordinance applies:
The applicant has been provided with:
An environmental review and declaration by the city Natural Resources Manager
Establishment of topographcal definition of top of bank and setback
Waiver of topographical survey
Positive staff reportage and consultation with the work in progress RECE�� %�� -�
not required as part of the application:
SEP 0 2 2014
- r
Soils engineering Z)LU Cl I-Y ( -,LtKK -
Hydrology
Structural verification that the 1958 foundation is usable or would be replaced
Deed restriction in relation to further increase of developed area